On Friday, Tasmania's parole board decided convicted killer Sue Neill-Fraser was a suitable candidate for early release.
The 68-year-old has served more than 13 years in prison for the 2009 murder of her partner Bob Chappell, whose body has never been found.
She was convicted of killing Mr Chappell and dumping his body from their yacht into the River Derwent, moored off Hobart.
Neill-Fraser has never disclosed the location of Mr Chappell's body to authorities and has always maintained her innocence, but will walk free within weeks.
If Neill-Fraser were a prisoner in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory her application for release would have been denied, because those jurisdictions have 'no body, no parole' laws.
In light of former Sydney teacher Chris Dawson's conviction for the 1982 murder of his wife Lynette, whose body is yet to be found, the New South Wales government announced it wants to introduce similar laws for offenders who "refuse to co-operate" with police.
If those reforms are introduced, Tasmania and the ACT will be the only two jurisdictions without them.
"I'm interested in the moves in New South Wales, and of course we'll look with great interest and consider reform," Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff said.
"We're open to reform where reform is well argued, where reform is evidence based, then of course we're open to those reforms."
Do they work?
In 2018, Graeme Evans pleaded guilty to the 2010 manslaughter of his former partner, Leeann Lapham, in far north Queensland.
Ms Lapham's body was located in bushland near Innisfail, after Evans — motivated by the state's 'no body, no parole' laws — told police where to find it.
Brett Thompson from the Queensland Homicide Victims' Support Group said to date, it is the only time his state's laws have produced such a result.
But, he told ABC Local Radio, that one result should motivate Tasmania to follow suit.
"Without question. Without a shadow of a doubt," he said.
"We have a family who has had a loved one returned. I strongly believe that this is going to continue to occur.
"The sad fact of the matter is that this isn't going to happen for every family, but we know it's going to have success for some families, and if that's the case we can't ignore it."
Protections needed
However, Greg Barns SC from the Prisoners Legal Service, is not convinced a "blanket law" makes for good legislation.
"You're forcing people to say, 'well, I didn't do it and here's the evidence that points to the fact that I didn't do it, but I'll say I did do it, just so I can get parole'."
While rare, Mr Barns said wrongful convictions do occur, and to coerce someone into a confession could compound the injustice.
"It can produce great unfairness, and the unfairness lies where people have denied — and consistently denied — that they committed the offence of murder," he said.
"They believe they're wrongfully convicted, and they're entitled to that belief, but they're not going to get parole at all simply because they can't comply with that particular law."
If this kind of law were to be introduced, Mr Barns said there would also need to be protections for those who want to assist police, but for some reason are unable to recall the location of a body.
"What do we do in those cases? Because people might remember, but they might get the particular area wrong, they might have some form of serious mental illness which might affect their memory," he said.
"That's the problem when you have a blanket law."
'No body' cases extremely rare
Dr Vicky Nagy, a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Tasmania, said trying to look for hard evidence these laws work was difficult because they were so rarely tested.
She said jurisdictions usually introduced them in response to a single case — such as in the Northern Territory, where 'no body, no parole' was brought in to try and convince Bradley John Murdoch to reveal the location of British backpacker Peter Falconio who he murdered in 2001.
"There's not a lot of them out there because, by and large, in those cases there's other evidence — and, I don't think there are a lot of cases where there's no body and the person is in prison."
Bradley John Murdoch is yet to reveal where he dumped Falconio's body.
To be paroled in Tasmania, Neill-Fraser is required to prove — amongst other things — that she is no danger to society, is rehabilitated, behaved well in prison, and will not re-offend.
Dr Nagy said she appreciated some people will find it difficult to understand how someone can be considered rehabilitated, but not cooperate fully with police.
"If you're not willing to cooperate, if you're not willing to reveal where a body is located, then it's suggesting that you're not accepting responsibility, and therefore you haven't served the appropriate period of time," she said.
But that doesn't mean Tasmania is a "soft touch" when it comes to parole applications.
Dr Nagy said it was likely board members took Neill-Fraser's lack of admission into account, but they would have been convinced she was no threat.
"Does it happen that they sometimes get it wrong? Yeah, it does, but by and large they do a very good job with the laws they have in place, with the guidelines they have to ensure that only those people who are unlikely to cause harm to people are the ones who are paroled."
She suggested Tasmania consider other options to a hard 'no body, no parole' law that might produce a similar incentive, but limit the damage to those wrongfully convicted.
"There is one idea of linking it to parole but making the parole period shorter. So saying, you can be eligible for parole sooner if you reveal where the body is," she said.
"Or saying while they're in custody, they can't participate in employment possibilities … and they can't get paid.
"But we don't actually have a lot of evidence around whether these laws work, because they tend to be in response to a single case, rather than it being an over-arching problem."
